School system could restrict employees' romantic relationships

Published: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 4:52 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 4:52 p.m.

One of the newest policies in the New Hanover County school system could put restrictions on employees' dating lives.

A proposed fraternization policy, a draft of which will be released Sept. 17, delves into romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates in the school system. School board members say there's not one specific issue that prompted them to consider the policy. But if the board adopts the policy, it will become one of seemingly few school districts in the state to detail who its employees can and can't date.

As it stands now, the fraternization policy would prevent supervisors being in a romantic relationship with their subordinates, said school board attorney Wayne Bullard, who is putting together the policy. Bullard said the new fraternization policy would be similar to the district's nepotism policy, which prevents employees from supervising their close relatives. Bullard stressed that the policy is still being written and could be changed by the policy committee or the school board before becoming final.

"It is not the intent of the policy committee, as far as I know, to restrict personal relationships between employees of the (system) who do not have a supervisor/subordinate relationship," Bullard wrote in an email.

But that possibility came up in an Aug. 20 policy committee meeting, when members of the committee began discussing ways to clarify how the district handled romantic relationships between employees, said Jeannette Nichols, chairwoman of the policy committee.

The district's employee code of ethics already covers relationships between supervisors and their subordinates. It says: "(Employees) shall not enter into a romantic relationship or affair with anyone they supervise." When the policy committee began discussing that statement, members felt they needed to elaborate on that one sentence, Nichols said.

During the meeting, Nichols said, board members discussed how to handle romantic relationships, including requiring employees to report a relationship with another employee, even if that employee was not the person's supervisor or subordinate.

"We thought that was a slippery slope, and we didn't have any right to require that unless one was supervising the other," Nichols said. "We needed a separate policy that was really cut and dry."

The policy committee includes Nichols and board members Tammy Covil and Lisa Estep. Minutes from the meeting show that board members Don Hayes and Derrick Hickey also attended.

To Nichols, it would be difficult to regulate teachers dating other teachers – and it's their personal business, she said. But it changes if supervisors start dating subordinates, she said.

"If you are supervising someone – if they are responsible for you – then that kind of fraternization could create a problem," she said.

She used employee evaluations as an example. If an employee got a poor evaluation from a supervisor he or she had a romantic relationship with – even if that evaluation was accurate – the employee could make a case for sexual harassment.

"It's sticky, but it's very necessary, because we do have more and more relationships within the schools," she said.

Elsewhere in North Carolina, it's not unusual for school districts to regulate where married couples fall in a supervisor-subordinate relationship, said Ann McColl, general counsel for the N.C. Association of Educators. That's often considered under a district's nepotism policy.

New Hanover County's nepotism policy includes language about this, stating that a subordinate employee should be transferred out of a supervisor's department or school when the two "get married, become domestic partners or enter into a romantic relationship." It also gives guidance on family members working in the same school or department, saying that people cannot supervise their immediate family members.

The new fraternization policy would focus only on romantic relationships between employees. Other than that, it's unclear how the new policy will differ from the current nepotism policy. Calls to school board Chairman Don Hayes for clarification were not immediately returned.

But a policy about a person's dating life "could end up being highly intrusive," McColl said.

"It really depends on how far this policy is going. When do you have to report what kind of relationship?" she said. "There's some intrusion in asking people about their personal relationships, so there should be a reason for doing so. The more intrusive it is, the better the reason should be."

<p>One of the newest policies in the New Hanover County school system could put restrictions on employees' dating lives.</p><p>A proposed fraternization policy, a draft of which will be released Sept. 17, delves into romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates in the school system. School board members say there's not one specific issue that prompted them to consider the policy. But if the board adopts the policy, it will become one of seemingly few school districts in the state to detail who its employees can and can't date. </p><p>As it stands now, the fraternization policy would prevent supervisors being in a romantic relationship with their subordinates, said school board attorney Wayne Bullard, who is putting together the policy. Bullard said the new fraternization policy would be similar to the district's nepotism policy, which prevents employees from supervising their close relatives. Bullard stressed that the policy is still being written and could be changed by the policy committee or the school board before becoming final. </p><p>"It is not the intent of the policy committee, as far as I know, to restrict personal relationships between employees of the (system) who do not have a supervisor/subordinate relationship," Bullard wrote in an email. </p><p>But that possibility came up in an Aug. 20 policy committee meeting, when members of the committee began discussing ways to clarify how the district handled romantic relationships between employees, said Jeannette Nichols, chairwoman of the policy committee.</p><p>The district's employee code of ethics already covers relationships between supervisors and their subordinates. It says: "(Employees) shall not enter into a romantic relationship or affair with anyone they supervise." When the policy committee began discussing that statement, members felt they needed to elaborate on that one sentence, Nichols said. </p><p>During the meeting, Nichols said, board members discussed how to handle romantic relationships, including requiring employees to report a relationship with another employee, even if that employee was not the person's supervisor or subordinate. </p><p>"We thought that was a slippery slope, and we didn't have any right to require that unless one was supervising the other," Nichols said. "We needed a separate policy that was really cut and dry."</p><p>The policy committee includes Nichols and board members Tammy Covil and Lisa Estep. Minutes from the meeting show that board members <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/topic51"><b>Don Hayes</b></a> and Derrick Hickey also attended.</p><p>To Nichols, it would be difficult to regulate teachers dating other teachers – and it's their personal business, she said. But it changes if supervisors start dating subordinates, she said.</p><p>"If you are supervising someone – if they are responsible for you – then that kind of fraternization could create a problem," she said. </p><p>She used employee evaluations as an example. If an employee got a poor evaluation from a supervisor he or she had a romantic relationship with – even if that evaluation was accurate – the employee could make a case for sexual harassment.</p><p>"It's sticky, but it's very necessary, because we do have more and more relationships within the schools," she said.</p><p>Elsewhere in North Carolina, it's not unusual for school districts to regulate where married couples fall in a supervisor-subordinate relationship, said Ann McColl, general counsel for the N.C. Association of Educators. That's often considered under a district's nepotism policy. </p><p>New Hanover County's nepotism policy includes language about this, stating that a subordinate employee should be transferred out of a supervisor's department or school when the two "get married, become domestic partners or enter into a romantic relationship." It also gives guidance on family members working in the same school or department, saying that people cannot supervise their immediate family members. </p><p>The new fraternization policy would focus only on romantic relationships between employees. Other than that, it's unclear how the new policy will differ from the current nepotism policy. Calls to school board Chairman Don Hayes for clarification were not immediately returned. </p><p>But a policy about a person's dating life "could end up being highly intrusive," McColl said.</p><p>"It really depends on how far this policy is going. When do you have to report what kind of relationship?" she said. "There's some intrusion in asking people about their personal relationships, so there should be a reason for doing so. The more intrusive it is, the better the reason should be." </p><p><i></p><p>Pressley Baird: 343-2328</p><p>On <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/news41"><b>Twitter</b></a>: @PressleyBaird</i></p>